Marshall University
Marshall Digital Scholar
Theses, Dissertations and Capstones
1-1-2005
The Major Vernacular Regions of Tennessee
James Curtis Barker
Follow this and additional works at: http://mds.marshall.edu/etd
Part of the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons
Recommended Citation
Barker, James Curtis, "The Major Vernacular Regions of Tennessee" (2005). Theses, Dissertations and Capstones. Paper 455.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Marshall Digital Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and
Capstones by an authorized administrator of Marshall Digital Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE MAJOR VERNACULAR REGIONS OF TENNESSEE
Thesis submitted to
the Graduate College of
Marshall University
In partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in Geography
by
Mr. James Curtis Barker
Dr. Sarah Brinegar, Committee Chair
Prof. Larry Jarrett, Committee Member
Dr. James Leonard, Committee Member
Marshall University
December 2005
Keywords: Vernacular region, regional affiliation, regional label
Copyright protected
Abstract: The Major Vernacular Regions of Tennesssee
James Curtis Barker
This research project delineates and examines the relative strength of the major
vernacular culture regions of Tennessee. Vernacular regions are delineated by recording
and mapping businesses and organizations whose identities contain a key element of a
regional label, such as: East Tennessee auto sales, Delta awning, etc.. Data are collected
using a popular internet telephone directory.
The number of listings occurring in each county is recorded for each regional
label. The county totals for each region are used to generate population-weighted county
index values (CIV). Maps of county index values (CIVs) display core and periphery
tendencies within vernacular regions. The major vernacular regions of Tennessee will be
delineated according to their corresponding CIVs.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Larry Jarrett and Dr. James Leonard
for being members of my thesis committee and for their guidance and suggestions.
Special thanks are reserved for Dr. Sarah Brinegar for offering numerous helpful
suggestions/comments and for her incredible patience.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………iii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….iv
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………v
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………..vi
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………….1
Chapter 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………3
Chapter 3: Study Area…………………………………………………………...7
Chapter 4: Methodology………………………………………………………...11
Chapter 5: Results……………………………………………………………….15
Chapter 6: Conclusion…………………………………………………………...35
Bibliography:…………………………………………………………………….37
Appendix 1:……………………………………………………………………...39
Appendix 2:……………………………………………………………………...43
Curriculum Vitae:………………………………………………………………..44
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1.....................................................................................................................14
Table 5.1.....................................................................................................................16
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1.........................................................................................................................10
Figure 5.1.........................................................................................................................17
Figure 5.2.........................................................................................................................18
Figure 5.3.........................................................................................................................19
Figure 5.4.........................................................................................................................20
Figure 5.5.........................................................................................................................21
Figure 5.6.........................................................................................................................21
Figure 5.7.........................................................................................................................22
Figure 5.8.........................................................................................................................24
Figure 5.9.........................................................................................................................25
Figure 5.10.......................................................................................................................25
Figure 5.11.......................................................................................................................26
Figure 5.12.......................................................................................................................26
Figure 5.13.......................................................................................................................27
Figure 5.14.......................................................................................................................27
Figure 5.15.......................................................................................................................28
Figure 5.16.......................................................................................................................29
Figure 5.17.......................................................................................................................30
Figure 5.18.......................................................................................................................31
Figure 5.19.......................................................................................................................31
Figure 5.20.......................................................................................................................32
Figure 5.21.......................................................................................................................32
Figure 5.22.......................................................................................................................34
vi
Chapter 1
Introduction
The concept of region is central to the field of geography. Regions are the
fundamental spatial units geographers consider in their studies. Simply stated, regions
are collections of places sharing some common physical, economic, cultural (or other)
variable. (Jordan- Bychkov and Domosh 1999)
Culture regions are regions whose existence and limits are rooted in at least one
cultural element or function. (Jordan- Bychkov and Domosh 1999) There are three
commonly recognized types of culture regions: formal, functional, and vernacular.
Formal culture regions are generally conglomerates of several cultural variables, and do
not have well-defined boundaries. Functional culture regions are spatial groupings that
serve some administrative function. Governmental units, like county or state boundaries,
or the area represented by an area code are two common examples of functional culture
regions. The third and most abstract culture region is the vernacular culture region.
(Jordan- Bychkov and Domosh 1999)
A vernacular region is a region whose existence is based on the perceptions of its
inhabitants. As Zelinsky (1980) states, it is “the product of the spatial perception of
average people.” Vernacular regions result from a collective people-place bond.
The study of vernacular regions provides insight to the growing regionalism or “regional
backlash” that has been occurring over the past few decades. (Zelinsky 1980) On a
global scale, this trend is evident. Events such as the separatist movement by
francophones in Quebec, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the former
Yugoslavia into a diverse lot of culturally rich states; demonstrate, among other things,
the strength of the people-place bond and the constant variance in regional affiliation.
(Morgan and Brinkman 1995, Zelinsky 1980)
Little is known about regional attitudes and identity in the state of Tennessee.
This research project delineates and examines the relative strength of the major
vernacular (popular) culture regions of Tennessee. Given the rather odd, elongated shape
of the state of Tennessee; stretching over a variety of physical and cultural landscapes,
one surmises that regional affiliation varies significantly throughout the state, and
includes some diverse allegiances. Most Tennesseans likely relate to at least one
directional region of the state; as directional regions are typically the most obvious to
geographers and non-geographers alike. The directional vernacular regions are well
represented in this project, but vernacular regions having physical or cultural elements
are also considered. Several of the vernacular regions delineated in this effort
undoubtedly extend into and beyond the boundaries of neighboring states. Such regions
will only be delineated as they occur within the borders of the state of Tennessee
1
The results of this effort better illustrate how one important segment of the
Tennessee population- business owners and managers- identify with the area(s) of
Tennessee that their organizations serve. Although comprising only a very small portion
of the overall population, business owners, one would expect, give their establishments
titles that the general public (consumers) identifies strongly with. (Reed 1976, Zelinsky
1980) By determining the distribution and relative weight of vernacular regional
association through business naming practices, this research produces an assessment of
regional affiliation throughout the state of Tennessee.
Data collected in the course of this project were used to generate three separate
map products. County index value (CIV) maps were constructed for all regional labels
meeting rather liberal initial inclusion criteria. The CIV maps demonstrate the absolute
affiliation for a single regional label, and are immune to influences of other regional
labels. Vernacular regions possessing average county index (ACI) values of over 0.05
were grouped into categories and mapped. These categorical maps introduced a measure
of competition into the delineation process; as no regions were allowed to share space
within their assigned category. The final map produced was the composite map. The
composite map of Tennessee vernacular regions contained all major vernacular regions
not exhibiting state-wide appeal.
2
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Delineating Vernacular Regions
The study of vernacular regions perhaps reached its zenith in the decade spanning
the mid 1970’s to mid 80’s. This period spawned several projects that explored the
concept of vernacular culture regions. Most of these attempts were conducted on a subnational or state level, and attempted to delineate at least one vernacular region.
(Zelinsky 1980; Jordan 1978; Good 1981; Lamme and Oldakowski 1982) At their basest
level, the pre-existing studies of vernacular regions all attempt to further the
understanding of the attachment of people to a particular place. The term “place” is
implicitly used in cultural geography to reference the union between people and a
particular spatial expanse. The concept of place is an integral part of human geography,
and although abstract, forms the basis for much of the research produced by cultural
geographers.
Multi-state research
Sociologist John Shelton Reed (1976) delineated the “South” and “Dixie” in The
Heart of Dixie: An Essay in Folk Geography. Reed’s results highlight two key
differences between the spaces represented by the terms the South and Dixie. The South
is both more strongly represented and more expansive than is Dixie. Reed’s South
extends from southern Pennsylvania west through central Illinois, south through about
one half of Kansas and terminating at the Mexican border at around Laredo, TX. The
periphery of Dixie, extends only to central West Virginia, Ohio, just north of Carbondale,
Ill., to extreme eastern Oklahoma and Texas. Reed’s findings demonstrate that the South
and Dixie are two separate and distinct regions. Reed attributes the popularity and wide
appeal to the term southern in that it is often used in a directional context. In other words,
the term southern is often affixed to an entity only to describe its location. However,
many persons attribute a measure of pride in being identified as southern. In this respect
Southern is surely used as a cultural term. It is this duality that makes it difficult to
determine the true boundaries of a Southern United States vernacular region based on
examining “Southern” telephone listings. Reed asserts that the term Dixie probably tells
us more about group identity and less about location than does the term southern. (Reed
1976)
In his effort to describe and map the popular regions of North America, Zelinsky
(1980) used telephone directories (the white pages) of selected cities to determine
regional affiliations by observing the names of businesses and non-profit agencies.
Beginning with a list of around 400 terms with possible regional ties, Zelinsky was able
to delineate 14 of the major vernacular regions of the U.S. and Canada: the South, the
Middle West, New England, the Southwest, Western, Eastern, Pacific, Atlantic, Northern,
Gulf, Northwest, Northeast, Acadia, and Middle Atlantic. (Zelinsky 1980)
3
State-level research
Several researchers would investigate vernacular regions on the state scale from
the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s. These efforts all employed similar methodologies to
gather data on regional affiliation within a given state. Good’s research, Vernacular
Regions of Arkansas, relied on data collected from questionnaires distributed to college
students at various institutions across Arkansas. The final product of this effort is a map
of Arkansas, with county boundaries identified, displaying the extent of the vernacular
regions identified in his research. (Good 1981) Jordan’s Perceptual Regions in Texas,
(1978), represents one of the earliest attempts to delineate vernacular regions on a state
level. Jordan was able to delineate twenty-nine vernacular regions and regions with no
clear regional affiliation in Texas. A series of maps was generated displaying these
regions, as with the Good article, no real effort was made to give relative weight to
regional affiliation, or to identify core/periphery areas within each vernacular region.
(Jordan 1978) However, this work did explore several trends in respect to Texas
vernacular regions. First, it was noted that affinity for environmental regional labels is
seemingly on the wane. Secondly, it appears that promotional labels are becoming more
popular as tourism boards and like organizations increasingly employ aggressive
marketing measures. Other researchers (Morgan and Mayfield 1995; Colton 1997) have
identified similar trends occurring elsewhere. (Jordan 1978) Lamme and Oldakowski, in
their 1982 article, Vernacular Areas of Florida, delineated the vernacular regions of the
Sunshine State. The results were much like those of similar efforts. Allegiance to
directional labels was fairly predictable, with physical and promotional regions enjoying
a measure of popularity. This project differed from other efforts in that popular city
toponyms were also examined. According to Lamme and Oldakowski (1982), Residents
of Tampa love their Cigar City, while Jacksonvillians reside in both the Bold New City of
the South and the River City. Those living in Gainesville may be shocked to learn that
they also inhabit Hogtown, a toponym perhaps more applicable to Little Rock, Ark.
Community-level research
Most research on vernacular regions dealt with relatively large spatial units, an
exception is Heath’s (1993) research on vernacular regions, titled Highly Localized
Vernacular Regionalization Allentown/Bethlehem PA. He focused solely on a sub-state
scale, a study area that included portions of ten Pennsylvania counties, encompassing the
cities of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton; an area otherwise known as the Lehigh
Valley. The results of this research may be best appreciated by those with intimate
knowledge of the study area. However, of interest to all geographers is the scale at which
the study was conducted. Heath demonstrated that vernacular regions exist at the subcounty level and it is possible, with much effort, to identify and delineate vernacular
regions on the community level. (Heath 1993)
4
Volatile Vernacular Regions
Several researchers have studied the dynamic nature of vernacular regions.
Vernacular culture regions occupy concrete space, but since their very presence is
determined by the perceptions of inhabitants, their existence is influenced by shifts in
popular culture. Vernacular regions, then, can be said to have fluid boundaries. (JordanBychkov and Domosh 1999, Morgan and Brinkman 1995)
Shortridge (1987) used an interesting data set to examine shifting regional
affiliations in Changing American Regional Labels. This data set was supplied in the
form of warranty cards from Cobra Communications, a leading manufacturer of Citizen
Band (CB) radios. In addition to product-specific questions, the warranty cards also
prompted the purchaser to list age, sex, community size, home address and community
location. The four possible choices for community location were East, South, West, and
Midwest. Shortridge used the age and regional data to test two main hypotheses. The
first hypothesis was that the East and West stand to make territorial gains into the south
and Midwest. The theory being that the more conservative South and Midwest were
most likely identified with by the most conservative (older) age classes. Conversely, East
and West were hypothesized to be more popular in regional transition areas among the
younger, more educated age groups. East and West will become increasingly popular as
the population ages, pushing transition zones deeper into what once was the South and
Midwest. Secondly, since the South and the Midwest are culturally similar, the age
group data will be similar in this transition zone as well. The boundaries between South
and Midwest should remain relatively unchanged. After analyzing the data, Shortridge’s
hypotheses would prove correct. Shortridge’s findings from the Cobra dataset
demonstrate several facts about the study of vernacular regions. Not only is it possible to
delineate such regions on a large scale, but it is also possible to predict the stability of
such regions and in which direction their boundaries are likely to or are currently moving.
Shortridge demonstrates convincingly that vernacular regions do not have fixed
boundaries, and with the proper data, their changes may be chronicled, even predicted.
(Shortridge 1987)
Several researchers have chronicled the genesis and growth of vernacular regions.
Morgan and Mayfield (2005) studied the birth and growth of the “oldest river” popular
region of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. In an effort to thwart dam
construction along the headwaters of the New River, local and regional environmental
groups began referring to the river as the oldest in the western hemisphere; only the Nile
River was touted to be older. Although no scientific evidence exists in peer-reviewed
literature to support the “oldest river” claim, the tactic worked. Plans to construct dams
on the New River in Northwestern North Carolina were shelved. Other organizations
began using the “oldest river” reference in their promotional schemes. Morgan and
Mayfield, using a popular internet search engine, assessed what types of organizations
most often use the “oldest river” handle as part of their marketing strategy. This survey
yielded the following results: 55 percent ( n=410) of the references to “oldest river” or
second oldest when referencing the New River were designed in order to promote or sell
5
a product or service. Forty percent of the references were purely of the informational
variety, with the remainder being classified as “other”. (Morgan and Mayfield 2005)
In Renaming of a Tennessee Region Morgan and Brinkman (1995) documented
the rapid renaming of one of Tennessee’s longest inhabited regions. Their study
encompassed several contiguous counties in the northeastern “tip” of the state. This
region was until the early to mid 1990’s known to Tennesseans as Upper East Tennessee.
By conducting archival searches of the region’s newspapers, the researchers found that
the term Upper East Tennessee was, by quite a large margin, the most commonly used
term defining the region until the late 1980’s. It was at this time a new name for the most
northeastern of Tennessee’s regions appeared on the scene. Northeast Tennessee was the
new regional label chosen to represent the region. The historical label “Upper East
Tennessee” was felt by many to be confusing and perhaps a little quaint. The shift in
terminology was encouraged by a local tourism agency. In 1987, the term Northeast
Tennessee was used for the first time in local newspapers. By the year 1991 local
periodicals were favoring the new term by quite a large margin. Most of the region’s
organizations and governmental agencies have since abandoned Upper East Tennessee in
favor of the new term. A few local businesses, organizations, and individuals resist the
name swap, but most entities in Upper East Tennessee have adopted the new label.
Morgan and Brinkman surmise that although “Northeast Tennessee” is the new preferred
label in the business arena, no one really knows for sure what is occurring on the
grassroots level. The authors suggest that most local residents view the change as
unnecessary, and probably would rather use the familiar “Upper East Tennessee”.
(Morgan and Brinkman 1995)
6
Chapter 3
Study Area
A glimpse into Tennessee’s past reveals rich cultural diversity and aids greatly in
the identification of regional labels examined in the course of this study. Present day
Tennessee encompasses lands once claimed by the colony (later state) of North Carolina
and several Native American tribes, chiefly the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw. The first
permanent settlers (of European descent) of Tennessee, then western North Carolina,
quickly became disenfranchised with their representation in state government. These
frontierspersons felt it unfair that they should be subjected to the same tax structure as
other North Carolinians, while they resided way out on the western frontier, a location
remote from the protection and services provided by the state government. (Corlew 1981)
In 1794, citizens from the westernmost corners of North Carolina and Virginia
gathered to discuss the formation of a new state, Franklin. These citizens, led by John
Sevier, prepared to lobby Congress to recognize western North Carolina (and the
westernmost portions of Virginia, pending Va. Government approval) as a separate and
distinct state. North Carolina had just recently ceded their western properties to the
federal government to help pay down the debt incurred during the Revolutionary War.
The North Carolina legislature reexamined their cessation decision, however, and in
November 1794, voted to repeal the cessation of their western lands. (Corlew 1981)
Once the North Carolina government decided not to relinquish their western
provinces, all hopes for Franklonian statehood were dashed. Congress, not wishing to
create animosity among any of the freshly minted states, refused to recognize the
Franklonians’ independence unless North Carolina saw fit to donate their western lands
directly to the state of Franklin. North Carolina would refuse to cede their western
provinces and thus would not grant independence to their western citizens. There would
be no state of Franklin. (Corlew 1981)
In 1789 the North Carolina legislature, with a fresh infusion of newly elected
representatives, some of them from the failed state of Franklin, voted again to cede their
western properties to the United States government. The United States Congress acted
quickly and formed the Territory of the United States, South of the River Ohio. This
territory would become the state of Tennessee with the signage of the statehood bill by
President George Washington on June 1, 1796. (Corlew 1981)
The Franklin issue would not die with the creation of the State of Tennessee. As
late as 1959, the U.S. Congress would consider legislation to form a new state from
portions of East Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia. Through the middle of the
twentieth century, and probably still existing today, there is a sense of disenfranchisement
among the rural highland residents of East Tennessee with respect to their representation
in their state government. These citizens reside a considerable distance from their seat of
government and undoubtedly would feel better represented by a more localized
7
government, one representing the interests and culture of Appalachian residents of East
Tennessee. (Corlew 1981)
Westward expansion brought permanent settlements to East Tennessee and the
Cumberland Plateau by the end of the Revolutionary War. Contrary to logical conclusion,
the Plateau was settled about the same time as extreme East Tennessee. One may
logically assume that the portions of Tennessee adjacent to the present day Virginia and
North Carolina borders would have been settled first, but this is not entirely historically
accurate. At the same time as settlers, speculators, and would-be-fortune seekers came
pouring in from western Virginia and North Carolina, hunters and trappers were
simultaneously settling on the Cumberland Plateau. The first Cumberland settlers came
not from the east, but north from the Kentucky frontier. (Corlew 1981)
The population of the Cumberland Plateau and Middle Tennessee would prove to
grow more quickly than that of mountainous East Tennessee. The topography and soils
of Middle Tennessee would prove to be far superior to agricultural pursuits than the
conditions found in the East Tennessee Appalachians, and as a result, this region quickly
became established as a population and political center of the state. (Corlew 1981)
By 1818 Tennessee had expanded westward to the Mississippi River, which
serves as the present-day western border. These lands were acquired through a series of
treaties with Native American tribes (chiefly the Cherokee and Chickasaw) whereby cash
or goods were given to the Indians in return for the relinquishment of tribal claims to
these properties. (Corlew 1981, Cotterhill 1954). The Jackson Purchase of 1818 secured
for Tennessee all lands between the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers. These two rivers
form the eastern and western boundaries of what is today known as West Tennessee.
Early settlers quickly realized the enormous agricultural potential of this fertile region.
West Tennessee would soon become a major producer of cotton, soybeans, corn, and
other labor-intensive row crops. (Corlew 1981)
The agricultural successes of early nineteenth century West Tennessee planters
were due in no small part to the contributions of slave laborers. The black population of
West Tennessee would exceed thirty percent of the total by 1840—a ratio supported
almost entirely by slaves. (Lamon 1981) Several West Tennessee counties would boast
slave populations over fifty percent of the total, as was the case for Fayette and Haywood
counties. (Lamon 1981) Middle Tennessee had fewer slaves than West Tennessee, but
did have some rather large concentrations of slave labor distributed among a few wealthy
early industrialists and cotton and tobacco planters. (Lamon 1981)
Farming in East Tennessee was less a commercial endeavor than it was a means
of securing a reliable food source. Farm size was small, compared to the vast acreages
located further west, and as a result fewer slaves were purchased by local landowners.
This may help explain why the Tennessee abolitionist movement began and was centered
in this region. (Corlew 1981, Lamon 1981)
8
East Tennessee was a Union stronghold during the Civil War. Confederate troops
could count on little cooperation from the easternmost residents of the state, and would
see its strategic aims thwarted several times by bands of East Tennessee Union
sympathizers. Remnant regional allegiances effect Tennessee (and Southern) culture to
this day. Politics in East Tennessee is dominated by the historically pro-Union
Republican Party. (Sheeler 1944, http://www.legislature.state.tn.us) The western portions
of the state historically elect Democratic candidates for local offices. Present-day voting
patterns may reflect remnant pro-union (republican) and pro-confederacy (democrat)
allegiances--a sentiment expressed by folk singer John Prine in “grandpa was a
carpenter”: “he [grandpa] voted for Eisenhower ‘cause Lincoln won the war.” (Prine,
1973)
Based on this segmented history, Tennessee is partitioned into three major
functional regions, or “grand divisions”: East, Middle, and West Tennessee (see figure 1).
Each of the three regions functions somewhat independently, with localized regional hubs:
Knoxville in East Tennessee, Nashville in Middle Tennessee, and Jackson in West
Tennessee. (Corlew 1981)
Physical and political differences only hint at the gulf that separates the “three
Tennessees.” They likely exist as semi-independent cultural units as well. Signs of this
cultural divergence are subtle; for example, there are three large fairs that service each
of the three Tennessees: the West Tennessee state fair in Jackson, Madison County, the
Tennessee state fair in Nashville, Davidson County, and the Appalachian Fair in Gray,
Washington County. Exactly what this demonstrates is unclear, nevertheless there is a
perceived need to regionalize a typically unifying event, the state fair.
(http://www.fairsandexpos.com/fair/state/us/tennessee.asp)
9
Figure 3.1
From Corlew, 1981
10
Chapter 4
Methodology
Researchers studying regional affiliation may choose one of two established
methodologies for data collection. One method of exploring vernacular regions involves
distributing questionnaires to a representative sample of an area’s population. Results
from this methodology are probably the truest in that the data collected come directly
from the responses of the study region’s inhabitants. After analysis, the data
confirm/disconfirm the existence of a vernacular region(s) and determine the region(s)
extent.
The questionnaire methodology was used by Good (1981), Shortridge (1985),
Jordan (1978), Lamme and Oldakowski (1982), and Heath (1993) in their vernacular
research. The primary research goal for these efforts was the delineation of vernacular
regions in a state or sub-national region of interest. They produced maps displaying the
location and extent of vernacular regions occurring in the study area(s). The strength of
association with a regional toponym, or its relative “weight” only exists to determine
which regions to include/exclude from further consideration. Their final map products
did not specifically address strength of regional affiliation, i.e. core and periphery areas.
Two major studies utilize telephone directories to obtain data for the purposes of
vernacular regional delineation. Reed (1976) and Zelinsky (1980) use the “white pages”
business listings in the delineation of sub-national vernacular regions. Both
methodologies yield results that assign relative weight to regional toponyms, allowing
one to easily view the spatial variances in the strength of a particular vernacular region.
In examining the vernacular regions of Tennessee, this research effort borrows
from the methodologies employed by Reed and Zelinsky, with the exception of an
original component: the use of an internet telephone directory as opposed to the standard
paper copies. To efficiently utilize the internet telephone directory, a list of regional
labels was constructed previous to the data collection process. The list was constructed
using a variety of sources, including: works on Tennessee history, literature from
chambers of commerce and tourism boards, and personal observations. The list includes
regional toponyms likely referencing physical features, spatial arrangement (direction),
ethnic composition, and cultural variables.
Initially it may seem that an overabundance of directional labels was included in
the list to the exclusion of cultural labels (see table 1). However, affiliation to directional
labels, in particular East, Middle, and West Tennessee, is likely based on variables other
than mere location. The decision to include these came from perusing works on the
history and culture of the state (mainly the Corlew and Cotterhill texts), as well as other
research efforts on vernacular regions, and picking out the terms which seemed to be
likely candidates for possessing a degree of regional identity. Inclusion of several of the
promotional and cultural terms was inspired by observing the titles on billboards,
11
newspaper advertisements, city/county websites, etc. While most assuredly not
comprehensive, this list of regional labels provides us with a good “starting point” from
which to investigate Tennessee regional and cultural identity.
Each entry on the list of Tennessee regional labels (table 1) was queried using the
internet directory http://yellowpages.superpages.com. Searches were conducted for each
individual regional labels on a statewide basis, returning all entities containing said
regional search term across the state of Tennessee. This particular directory returned not
only the organization’s title and phone number, but also the town or city in which it is
located. The locational information was used to determine the county of origin, the
minimum spatial unit considered in this study. Regional search terms returning less than
ten total occurrences or failing to occur in more than one county were excluded from
further consideration (the initial exclusion criteria).
To quantify strength of regional affiliation, a population-weighted index value
was generated for each county that registered at least one entry for a particular regional
label. The number of occurrences per county per regional label was divided by the total
population of said county. These values were in turn multiplied by 1,000, yielding values
ranging from single-digit whole numbers to thousandths of a whole. This value is called
the county index value or CIV, where large index values represent strong regional
affiliation for a county. CIVs were calculated for all regional labels in table 1 that passed
the initial inclusion criteria. To determine the strength of each vernacular region as a
whole, the mean of all CIVs for each regional label was also calculated. This value is the
average county index (ACI) value. For each regional title passing the initial inclusion
criteria, and possessing an average county index of over .025, a map of county index
values (CIV’s) was generated; with the exception of State of Franklin, which only
occupied Washington and Sullivan Counties. These maps demonstrate not only the
overall spatial extent of the regional toponyms, but also demonstrate core/periphery
tendencies throughout the region (see figures 2-14).
Regions that attained an average county index value of greater than .05 were
classified as “major” vernacular regions. These regions were delineated in categorical
maps (see figures 5.1-5.22). For the categorical maps, the major regions were grouped
and mapped according to one of six descriptive categories: intrastate macro directional,
intrastate promotional/directional, intrastate physical/environmental, interstate
directional/promotional, interstate ethnic, or interstate physical/environmental. Two
categories, the intrastate macro-directional and the intrastate micro-directional contain
vernacular regions occurring wholly within Tennessee’s borders. The largest in-state
directional regions: East, Middle, and West Tennessee, were placed in the intrastate
macro-directional category. Smaller in-state directional regions, Northwest Tennessee
and South East Tennessee, were paired with an in-state promotional region—Tri-cities—
in the intrastate micro-directional/promotional category. Physical and environmental
regions were similarly categorized, with Appalachia placed in the interstate
physical/environmental category, while Smoky Mountain[s] and [Cumberland] Plateau
were placed in the intrastate physical/environmental category. The interstate
promotional/directional, contains the Midsouth and the Southeast, both generally
12
understood to encompass portions of several states. The sixth category, interstate ethnic,
contained only the Cherokee vernacular region.
Within each descriptive category, the major vernacular regions were delineated
according to the following rules. First, no county may be a member of multiple
vernacular regions; counties with CIVs for more than one region in a given category were
considered a member county of the region for which the highest CIV was obtained.
Second, no county that was non-contiguous with other member counties, regardless of the
CIV, were included in said region. Third, non-member counties completely surrounded,
or nearly so, by counties belonging to a vernacular region were included in said region;
unless the non-member county bordered a different vernacular region.
The categorical maps introduce a measure of “competitiveness” into the
delineation process. For each category, a county may only be a member of one
vernacular region. Counties with CIVs for multiple regional labels in a given category
were awarded to the region for which the CIV is highest. By mapping major vernacular
regions according to categories, distinctive regions were identified by excluding noncontiguous counties and including non-member “island” counties. Categorizing the maps
also introduced areas of regional non-affiliation into the process. Counties with no CIVs
for any region in a given category may be interpreted as regional transition zones.
The final type of map produced during this research was the composite map. As
with the categorical maps, counties were only assigned to the region in which its CIV was
the highest; no county was permitted to belong to multiple vernacular regions. Counties
possessing identical CIVs for multiple regions were placed into a separate category—
multiple regional affiliation.
13
Table 4.1: Initial Regional Label List
Regional term
Source/category
Appalachian
East Tennessee
Middle Tennessee
West Tennessee
NW Tennessee
SW Tennessee
SE Tennessee
NE Tennessee
North Tennessee
South Tennessee
North Central Tennessee
South Central Tennessee
Mid-West
Mid-East
Atlantic
Eastern
Dixie
Mid-South
Melungeon
Cherokee
Shawnee
Choctaw
Volunteer
Blues
Bluegrass
Country Music
Barbecue
Tennessee Valley
Rock-a-billy
Elvis
Upper East Tennessee
Lower East Tennessee
Smoky Mountain
Plateau
Tri-Cities
Tri-State
Southeast
State of Franklin
Delta
Magic Valley
Nashville Basin
Bluegrass Basin
Cultural/physical
Directional/cultural
Directional/cultural
Directional/cultural
Directional/Promotional
Directional/Promotional
Directional/Promotional
Directional/Promotional
Directional/Promotional
Directional/Promotional
Directional
Directional
Cultural/directional
Cultural/directional
Cultural/directional
Cultural/directional
Historical/Cultural
Directional/Promotional
Historical/Ethnic
Historical/Ethnic
Historical/Ethnic
Historical/Ethnic
Historical/Cultural
Historical/Cultural
Physical/Cultural
Historical/Cultural
Cultural
Physical
Cultural
Cultural
Directional/ Historical
Directional/ Historical
Physical/Promotional
Physical
Promotional
Promotional/Directional
Directional/Cultural
Historical/Cultural
Cultural/Promotional
Promotional
Physical
Physical
14
Chapter 5
Results
County Index Value Maps
Table 2 lists the regional labels that passed the first criteria for inclusion (more
than 10 total entries and occurring in more than one county) and their associated average
county index values (ACI). Those regions which achieved an ACI value of 0.025 or
greater were mapped using county index values (CIV) and discussed below.
Tennesseans associated with several interstate (multi-state)
directional/promotional vernacular regions. They declared their allegiance to the
Southeast, the Midsouth, Dixie, the Midwest, the [Mississippi] Delta, the Tri-state and
the East-[ern U.S.] Average county indices for the Midwest, Delta, Tri-state and Eastern
were not above 0.05, that is they were below the cutoff for membership into the “major”
vernacular region category. Clearly, residents of Tennessee strongly identified
themselves as Midsoutherners, Southeasterners, and Southerners (residents of Dixie); and
resisted association with the Midwest, the Delta, the Tri-state and the East.
Tennesseans would also declare themselves members of several intrastate (instate) directional/promotional regions. Four such regions would exhibit relatively strong
affiliation, evidenced by average county indices of over 0.1: East Tennessee, West
Tennessee, Northwest Tennessee, and the Tri-cities. Two would exhibit moderate
strength with ACIs between 0.05 and 0.1: Middle Tennessee and Southeast Tennessee.
The only intrastate directional/promotional region to “miss the cut” was Northeast
Tennessee, with a ACI of 0.047. Three of the five physical vernacular regions earned
“major” status: Appalachia[n], [Cumberland] Plateau, and the Smoky Mountian[s].
Favor for the Plateau and Smoky Mountain regional labels were very high; these two
regions had the two highest ACIs of all the regional labels considered in the course of this
study. The Tennessee Valley, State of Franklin, and Bluegrass regional labels failed to
achieve ACIs of over 0.05 and thus were excluded from further consideration.
Intrastate macro-directional regions
Relatively large state-specific vernacular regions were considered intrastate
macro-directional regions. County index value maps were produced for three such
regions: East Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, and West Tennessee. There were five
counties with East Tennessee CIVs not generally included in the East Tennessee grand
division. Four of these are understood to be in Middle Tennessee: Davidson, Williamson,
Sequatchie, and Grundy; and one—Shelby—in West Tennessee (see appendix 2 for
county reference maps). Grundy and Sequatchie counties are located on the eastern edge
of Middle Tennessee (figure 5.2), on the functional East Tennessee periphery (see figure
3.1). These two counties identified strongly with East Tennessee—a fact evidenced by
15
county index values of 0.264 for Sequatchie and 0.070 for Grundy. Neither Grundy nor
Sequatchie Counties have Middle Tennessee CIVs. Davidson, Williamson, and Shelby
all shared county index values under 0.01. These three counties lacked significant
identity with East Tennessee, and were most likely not representative of this region.
The extent of vernacular West Tennessee (figure 5.1) is practically identical to the
functional West Tennessee. With the exception of three counties: Benton, Crockett, and
Chester; the remaining twenty-five counties of functional West Tennessee have CIVs for
the West Tennessee regional label. The association is fairly strong, only two of the
twenty five counties with West Tennessee affiliation have county index values under .05
(Shelby—.03, Hardin--.039). The region as a whole boasts the third highest county index
average (.145) of all the examined regions.
Of the three vernacular regions named after the “grand divisions,” Middle
Tennessee (figure 5.2) is the weakest. Vernacular Middle Tennessee has the lowest
average county index of the three at .086. Only eight of the 33 functional East Tennessee
counties fail to exhibit East Tennessee county index values. Twenty of the 41 counties in
the Middle Tennessee grand division do not possess corresponding county index values.
Vernacular Middle Tennessee does have a clearly defined core, radiating east and south
from Davidson County. An irregular periphery flanks the Middle Tennessee core to its
west and south; but a large portion of the northeastern functional Middle Tennessee is
absent from the vernacular region of the same name.
Table 5.1: Regional Average County Indices
Region
Volunteer
Average County
index
.107
Region
Smoky mountain
Average County
Index
.147
Appalachian
.06
Southeast
.07
Delta
.044
State of Franklin
.046
Dixie
.058
Tennessee valley
.047
East Tennessee
.105
Tri Cities
.129
Eastern
.025
Tri State
.05
Mid south
.085
West Tennessee
.145
Middle Tennessee
.086
Bluegrass
.023
Midwest
.018
Plateau
.204
NE Tennessee
.047
SE Tennessee
.055
16
NW Tennessee
.12
Cherokee
.066
Figure 5.1
Intrastate micro-directional/promotional regions
The delineation of the other directional regions (figure 5.3) (Southeast Tennessee,
Northeast Tennessee, and Northwest Tennessee) was reasonably predictable as they
tended to exist only in the portion of the state contained in their titles. The Southeast
Tennessee vernacular region was restricted to the southeastern corner of the state; the
same trend held for the remaining two regions, as well. Surprisingly, the Southwest
Tennessee regional label did not pass the initial inclusion criteria.
Northwest Tennessee, by far the strongest of the intra-state micro directional
regions, occupies roughly the northern third of functional West Tennessee, minus Lake
County. County index values were highest in the northern reaches of vernacular
Northwest Tennessee. Southeast Tennessee and Northeast Tennessee did not have any
counties with CIVs over 0.1, whereas Northwest Tennessee had six.
Vernacular Northeast Tennessee was restricted to four adjacent counties: Sullivan,
Washington, Carter, and Unicoi; and one western outlier, Campbell. Campbell County,
17
with an index value of only 0.025, is most likely not part of Northeast Tennessee.
Southeast Tennessee encompasses nine adjacent counties with one western outlier,
Williamson County.
Figure 5.2
Favor for the Tri-cities regional label (figure 5.4) was greatest in the northeasternmost tip of the state. The term Tri-cities refers to the Tennessee cities of Johnson City,
Kingsport, and Bristol, TN-VA. The three cities form the Tri-cities and all are included
in the same MSA. Obviously, the term Tri-cities was not exclusively used to refer to the
three cities mentioned above. The Tri-cities regional label enjoyed sporadic favor as far
west as Shelby County (Memphis), and sported county index values of 0.058 and 0.051
in Roane and Morgan counties in western East Tennessee.
Interstate directional/promotional regions
Identification with the Southeast regional label (figure 5.6) was greatest in
functional Middle and East Tennessee. Six West Tennessee counties: Madison, Crockett,
Henry, Haywood, Gibson, and Shelby, were identified with the Southeast as well. The
Mid-South (figure 5.5) was one of the most widely recognized and strongest vernacular
regions in Tennessee. With 62 member counties, the Midsouth could be said to have
state-wide appeal. Only one county in functional East Tennessee, however, had a county
18
index of 0.05 or greater—Campbell county at 0.05. The Midsouth, as it occurs in the
state, is mainly a Middle and West Tennessee construct.
Figure 5.3
Interstate physical/environmental regions
Appalachia (figure 5.7) was the only major vernacular region of Tennessee in the
Interstate physical/environmental category. The Appalachian vernacular region shared
most of its member counties with other regional labels. Of the 32 counties with
Appalachian CIVs, 21 of those possessed East Tennessee CIVs as well. While the two
regions are spatially similar, they had varying strengths of affiliation as represented by
the average county index values. For Appalachia, this value was 0.06. East Tennessee
boasted a county index average of 0.105. The association with East Tennessee was about
twice as strong as that of Appalachia.
Appalachia shared many member counties with other regional labels. Six western
Appalachian counties and three others: Fentress, Overton, and Warren, had CIVs for the
regional label Plateau. In a sense, the Plateau was Appalachia minus East Tennessee. All
of the counties with Plateau CIVs sported county index values over 0.025—denoting at
least moderate affiliation. One county, Cumberland County, had a whole number index
value of 1.026, denoting an extremely strong affiliation. The Plateau vernacular region
had the highest average county index (0.204) of all the identified regions. The strength of
19
this regional affiliation was anchored in Cumberland County and the three counties to its
northeast, but it was significant throughout the nine-county region.
A number of counties---Knox, Roane, Putnam, Davidson, White, DeKalb,
Franklin, and Maury---identified with both Appalachia and Middle Tennessee. Knox and
Roane counties had Middle Tennessee county index values of less than 0.02, well below
their levels for East Tennessee, and thus were more representative of East Tennessee.
Roane County had identical CIVs for Middle Tennessee and Appalachia (0.019), sharing
an equally weak affiliation for both regional labels. White County also exhibited equal
Appalachia and Middle Tennessee index values (0.043), but was not included in
vernacular East Tennessee, signifying a weak attachment to both regions. Putnam and
DeKalb counties were part of that west-ward protrusion of the Appalachian region into
the central portions of Tennessee. This “finger” of Appalachia, typified by relatively low
CIVs, extends west to Davidson County, the node of the Middle Tennessee functional
region, and home to Nashville, the state capital. Putnam County was also in the Plateau
vernacular region, possessing a county index value of 0.08, indicating a much stronger
affiliation with the Plateau label than the Appalachian label, where the index value was
only 0.016. Davidson County’s affiliation with the East Tennessee and Appalachian
vernacular regions is difficult to understand. In either case it exists as a western outlier
and certainly is not at the core of either region. On the whole, however, it can be said
with confidence that the East Tennessee and Appalachian vernacular regions are spatially
very similar (see figures 5.1 and 5.7).
Figure 5.4
20
Figure 5.5
Figure 5.6
21
Intrastate physical/environmental regions
The Plateau (figure 5.8) regional label was the strongest, in terms of average
county index values, vernacular region examined in the course of this study. As CIVs
indicate, the Plateau vernacular region is situated along the East Tennessee and Middle
Tennessee boundary. Three Plateau counties identified with Middle Tennessee (Putnam,
White, Warren), two with East Tennessee (Scott and Cumberland), three with neither
(Morgan, Fentress, Overton) and one with both, Roane. The Plateau, then, appears
equally shared by Middle and East Tennessee.
The Smoky Mountain (figure 5.9) regional label is reserved for a dozen counties
in eastern Tennessee. Two counties share a disproportionate attachment for the Smoky
Mountain label, Cocke (county index—0.268) and Sevier (county index—1.307). These
represent two of the three Tennessee counties in which Great Smoky National Park is
located, Blount County being the third. Favor for this regional label was centered around
Sevier and Cocke counties, and does not radiate far from this core.
Figure 5.7
22
Interstate Ethnic regions
Affiliation for the regional label Cherokee (figure 5.10) was restricted to the
eastern third of the state. The distribution of the Cherokee label almost mirrored that of
the Appalachian vernacular region. The presence of a relatively strong ethnic-based
vernacular region perhaps suggested the presence of a remnant Native American culture
region, or ethnic substrate. (Jordan-Bychkov and Domosh 1999) However, it is difficult
to ascertain whether businesses and organizations in East Tennessee having “Cherokee”
in their titles are referencing this once thriving native culture, or are named in reference
to the Cherokee National Forest located in East Tennessee.
Other Vernacular Regions
Several vernacular regions passed the initial inclusion criteria but were not
included in the categorical or composite maps. The decision to exclude such regions was
based on one of two criteria: the regions either failed to attain an average county index of
greater than 0.05, or exhibited widespread state-wide appeal.
The Delta (figure 5.11) vernacular region of Tennessee was centered in the
southwestern corner of the state, strongest in those counties closest to the Mississippi
River. Mississippi delta refers to the fertile floodplain flanking the Mississippi in
Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. While important almost exclusively in
West Tennessee, counties far remote from the Mississippi River associate weakly with
the Delta regional label. The nature of this association is unclear. Wayne County is the
only county not located in the West Tennessee grand division possessing a county index
value of over 0.05. It does appear that the term Delta is not always used in reference to a
hydrological component.
Favor for the regional title Tennessee Valley (figure 5.12) was greatest in the
counties closest to the Tennessee River. There was an interesting deviation from this
trend present in the map of the county index values for this region, however. Notice the
tier of moderate to strong affiliation in central Middle Tennessee. The Tennessee River
neither flows through nor borders Jackson, DeKalb, Cannon, Warren, Coffee, or Franklin
counties, but residents of these counties nonetheless identified with the Tennessee Valley
regional label.
The Volunteer regional label (figure 5.13) exhibited state-wide appeal. There
were multiple core areas for this region, centered around Knox county and the
Cumberland Plateau in the east, and most of West Tennessee in the west. Such
widespread acceptance of the volunteer regional label was probably related to either the
state’s nickname—the Volunteer state, or the University of Tennessee’s sports teams—
the Volunteers, or both. Seventy-five of Tennessee’s 95 counties were members of this
region. Fifty-seven of the 75 member counties had county index values of over 0.05—
indicating at least moderate affiliation with this region. Since this region was uniform
23
across the state, the Volunteer regional label was not included in the categorical or
composite maps.
Acceptance for the regional label Dixie (Figure 5.14) approximated that of the
vernacular Volunteer region. While not as strong as the Volunteer region or having as
many member counties, there was state-wide acceptance and identification for the term
Dixie. Given the uniform acceptance of this regional label throughout the state, Dixie was
not included in the categorical or composite map products.
The distribution of the Tri-state regional label (figure 5.15) was scattered, but
predictable. The Tri-state vernacular regions in Tennessee were located along the
northeastern, southeastern, and southwestern borders, in close proximity to two other
neighboring states—hence the term “Tri-state”. The Tri-state label is used throughout the
United States to refer to such regions---this is not a label unique to Tennessee, by any
means.
Figure 5.8
24
Figure 5.9
Figure 5.10
25
Figure 5.11
Figure 5.12
26
Figure 5.13
Figure 5.14
27
Figure 5.15
Categorical Maps
Fourteen regional labels were found to be indicative of major vernacular regions.
Twelve of the fourteen major regions were included in the categorical maps (figures 5.165.21). Two major vernacular regions, Dixie and Volunteer, were not included in the
categorical maps as their appeal is state-wide.
The intrastate macro-directional category contained East, Middle, and West
Tennessee. These major vernacular regions roughly adhered to their associated “grand
divisions” or functional regions. Apparent in both the boundaries between West and
Middle, and Middle and East Tennessee were areas of no regional affiliation. These nonmember counties had no CIV’s corresponding to either of the three vernacular regions in
this category. Benton, Humphreys, Houston, and Stewart counties made up a “neutral
zone” of sorts between West and Middle Tennessee. Pickett, Fentress, Overton, Clay,
Jackson, and Van Buren counties formed an area of non-affiliation between East and
Middle Tennessee.
28
Figure 5.16
Interestingly, vernacular East Tennessee had two “pockets” of non-affiliation
occurring within its boundaries. Campbell, Claiborne, Union, and Grainger counties in
north-central East Tennessee and Johnson, Carter, and Unicoi Counties, in extreme
northeastern East Tennessee all lacked CIVs for the East Tennessee regional label. It is
not clear why these two islands of non-affiliation exist.
The boundary between the Midsouth and the Southeast in the Interstate
directional category was also marked by areas of non-affiliation. Trousdale, Macon,
Jackson, Clay, Overton, and Pickett counties formed a northern zone of non-affiliation
between the two regions. Marion, Sequatchie, and Van Buren counties formed a southern
tier of non-affiliation along the Mid-South border. Both the Midsouth and the Southeast
had islands of non-affiliation within their boundaries. Johnson, Carter and Unicoi
Counties in extreme northeast Tennessee failed to exhibit CIVs for the Southeast regional
label; as did Monroe and Polk Counties in southeast Tennessee. A two-county neutral
zone along the north-central border of the Mid-South was comprised of Montgomery and
Stewart Counties.
29
Figure 5.17
Appalachia was the only region placed in the interstate physical category. Its
extent was similar to that displayed by mapping Appalachian CIVs. The only changes
between the CIV and categorical maps occurred when small islands of non-affiliation
within the boundaries were included as member counties.
The intrastate directional/promotional category contains Northwest Tennessee,
Southeast Tennessee, and the Tri-cities. Predictably, Northwest Tennessee and Southeast
Tennessee were confined to the northwest and southeast corners of the state, respectively.
The Tri-cities vernacular region functioned here as a surrogate Northeast Tennessee
vernacular region of sorts. The ACI of the Tri-cities was over twice that of Northeast
Tennessee. Perhaps the popularity of the Tri-cities regional label existed at the detriment
of the Northeast Tennessee regional label.
The intra-state physical/environmental category contained the Plateau
(Cumberland) and Smoky Mountain vernacular regions. These two regions had the
highest ACIs of any of the regions that passed the initial inclusion criteria. Both regions
had one county with a whole number CIV, Cumberland County (1.026) for the Plateau,
and Sevier County (1.307) for the Smoky Mountain vernacular region. Both regions had
identical CIVs for Warren County (0.026). Since Warren County is located on the
western border of the Plateau, far from the contiguous Smoky Mountain region, Warren
County was included in the Plateau vernacular region.
30
Figure 5.18
Figure 5.19
31
Figure 5.20
Figure 5.21
32
Composite Map
Compiled into one final map product, several of Tennessee’s major vernacular
regions disappear altogether, or lose many of their member counties (figure 5.22).
Appalachia occupied the eastern one-third of the state in the categorical maps, but only
had two member counties in the composite map. Appalachian counties had relatively low
CIVs; when compared to all other major vernacular regions, only Claiborne and Polk
counties retained Appalachian CIVs as their highest values amongst the regional labels.
East Tennessee and Middle Tennessee would lose several member counties, but retained
cohesive cores. West Tennessee was the most fractured of the three intrastate macrodirectional regions; it failed to keep a central area of contiguous core counties. Of the two
interstate directional/promotional regions, the Midsouth retained a measure of
cohesiveness, snaking through portions of West and Middle Tennessee. The Southeast,
however, only included seven counties scattered throughout East and Middle Tennessee.
The intrastate physical/environmental regions, Smoky Mountain[s] and the [Cumberland]
Plateau would see their expanses reduced to a few core counties. Sevier and Cocke
counties were the only two members of the Smoky Mountain popular region. Morgan,
Fentress, Overton, and Cumberland counties represented the Plateau vernacular region.
Southeast Tennessee disappeared entirely, Sullivan, Carter, Washington, and Roane
counties remained in the Tri-cities vernacular region, while only Carroll, Weakley, and
Obion counties would remain members of the Northwest Tennessee vernacular region.
The Cherokee vernacular region included the eastern Tennessee counties of Johnson,
Unicoi, Hawkins, Hamblen, Grainger, Jefferson, and McMinn.
Counties with identical CIVs for multiple regions, classified in the map as
“multiple regions,” occurred primarily on the eastern and western boundaries of Middle
Tennessee. This possibly indicated the presence of a transition area among bordering
regions in these areas. Finally, Perry, Robertson, Trousdale, Jackson, Pickett, Van Buren,
and Moore counties in the central portion of the state exhibited no affiliation for any of
the regional labels examined in this project. These seven counties are classified as “no
regional affiliation” on the composite map.
33
Figure 5.22
34
Chapter 6
Conclusion
The results of this project demonstrate that it is possible to examine the strength
of regional affiliation and delineate vernacular regions on a state level using an internet
telephone directory. In fact, this method of analysis probably presents fewer difficulties
in procuring data (i.e. finding and thumbing through directories) and most likely hastens
the data processing. It remains to be seen what variance, if any, exists in data obtained
from paper directories (standard phone books) and that gleaned from the internet
directories. Future research may identify that gap, if it exists.
The map series produced through this research demonstrate several different
characteristics of the major Tennessee vernacular regions. The CIV maps display the
extent and weight of regional affiliation of numerous vernacular regions. By displaying
county index values of each regional label, CIV maps highlight the core and periphery
areas of each region.
From the results of this project it is apparent that the vast majority of Tennessee
counties identify with directional or promotional labels. From the categorical maps, one
may see that only 18 of the 95 counties do not identify with any of the three grand
divisions (East, Middle, and West Tennessee). The two interstate directional/promotional
regions exhibited similar affiliation, with only 17 counties not identified with either the
Midsouth or the Southeast.
Identification with the intrastate micro-directional/promotional labels occurs on a
much smaller scale. It seems logical that fewer counties would identify with the
Northwest Tennessee, Southeast Tennessee, and Tri-cities labels, as opposed to East,
Middle, and West Tennessee. Regional affiliation for the micro-intrastate
directional/promotional labels is strong, but occupies fewer counties (less space) than the
larger state-specific directional vernacular regions.
Identification with physical regional labels is observed only in the eastern third of
the state. Vernacular Appalachia enjoys wide appeal in eastern Tennessee. Two
intrastate physical regions, Smoky Mountain and Plateau, occupy a good deal of the
Appalachian vernacular region, but have average county indices at least twice that of the
“mother region”. With exception of the three intrastate macro-directional labels, the
general trend was that small regions exhibited greater CIVs than spatially larger regions
occupying the same space.
This project measured the relative strength of regional affiliation on the county
level. This was accomplished by generating index values based on the number of
businesses/organizations occurring in a given county whose titles contained a key
element of a regional label. While this information is useful, essential perhaps, to those
wishing to identify core/periphery areas in regional association; there is no benchmark
35
with which to compare this data. In other words, there is no value that demonstrates the
actual human affiliation for a particular regional label. The degree to which business
titles represent actual regional affiliation among a region’s inhabitants is not known.
Further research is needed to explore this possible divergence in regional identification.
36
Bibliography
Bible, Jean Patterson, Melungeons Yesterday and Today. Mountain Press. Signal
Mountain, TN. 1975. (1-93).
Colton, Craig E. 1997. The Land of Lincoln: Genesis of a Vernacular Region. Journal of
Cultural Geography. Vol. 16 No. 2 pp. 55-75.
Corlew, Robert E. Tennessee: A Short History. The University of Tennessee Press.
Knoxville, TN. 1981. (3-550).
Cotterhill, R.S. The Southern Indians. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, OK. 1954
(140-239).
Good, James K. 1981. The Vernacular Regions of Arkansas. Journal of Geography. Vol.
80. Sept. 1981. pp 179-185.
Heath, Douglas E. 1993. Highly Localized Vernacular Regionalization in the AllentownBethlehem Area, PA-NJ. Professional Geographer. August 1993, Vol. 45, no. 5
pp. 251—263.
Hudson, Charles, The Southeastern Indians. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville,
TN. 1976. (3-16).
Jordan, Terry G. 1978. Perceptual Regions in Texas. The Geographical Review. Vol.68.
293—307.
Jordan-Bychkov, T.G. and Mona Domosh. 1999. The Human Mosaic, 8th ed. New York.
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Lamme III, A.J. and R.K. Oldakowski. 1982. Vernacular Areas in Florida. Southeastern
Geographer 22: 100-109.
Lamon, Lester C., Blacks in Tennessee 1791-1970.
Knoxville, TN. 1981 (3-25).
University of Tennessee Press,
Mayfield, Michael W. and Morgan, John T. 2005. The “Oldest River” as an
Appalachian Popular Region. Journal of Geography. Vol. 104. pp. 59-64.
Morgan, John T. and Brinkman, Leonard W. 1995. The Renaming of a Tennessee
Region. Geographical Bulletin. Vol. 37, No. 1 pp. 49-56.
Prine, John. 1973. “Grandpa Was a Carpenter” Atlantic Records.
Reed, John S., 1976. The Heart of Dixie: An essay in Folk Geography. Social Forces.
Vol. 54, no. 4, June 1976. pp. 925-938.
37
Sheeler, J. Ruben. 1944. Background Factors of East Tennessee. The Journal of Negro
History. Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 166-175.
Shortridge, James R. 1985. The Vernacular Middle West. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 75, 1985, pp. 48-57.
Shortridge, James R. 1987. Changing Usage of Four American Regional Labels. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 325-336.
Zelinsky, Wilbur. 1980. North America’s Vernacular Regions. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers. Vol. 70, No. 1, March 1980. pp. 1-16.
38
Appendix 1
Highest County Index Values, By County
County
Region
County Index
Value
Anderson
East Tennessee
0.196
Bedford
Middle Tennessee
0.16
Benton
0.121
Blount
NW Tennessee
Midsouth
SE Tennessee,
Southeast, East
Tennessee
East Tennessee
Bradley
Southeast
0.136
Campbell
Midsouth, Southeast
0.05
Cannon
Midsouth, Middle
Tennessee
0.078
Carroll
NW Tennessee
0.068
Carter
Tri-cities
0.211
Cheatham
Southeast, Midsouth
0.028
Chester
Midsouth
0.129
Claiborne
Appalachia
0.201
Clay
Southeast, Midsouth
0.125
Cocke
Smoky Mountain
0.268
Coffee
Middle Tennessee
0.104
Crockett
Middle Tennessee
0.275
Cumberland
Plateau
1.026
Davidson
Middle Tennessee
0.13
Decatur
Middle Tennessee
0.256
Bledsoe
39
0.081
0.113
DeKalb
Middle Tennessee
0.287
Dickson
Midsouth
0.046
Dyer
West Tennessee
0.429
Fayette
Midsouth
0.104
Fentress
Plateau
0.301
Franklin
Middle Tennessee
0.051
Gibson
West Tennessee
0.125
Giles
Midsouth
0.136
Grainger
Cherokee
0.290
Greene
East Tennessee
0.079
Grundy
Hamblen
East Tennessee, SE
Tennessee, Tricities, Appalachia
Cherokee
0.138
Hamilton
East Tennessee
0.062
Hancock
East Tennessee, Tricities
Midsouth, West
Tennessee
0.147
Hardeman
0.07
0.071
Hawkins
West Tennessee,
Middle Tennessee,
Midsouth
Cherokee
Haywood
Midsouth
0.152
Henderson
Midsouth
0.157
Henry
West Tennessee
0.225
Hickman
Southeast, Middle
Tennessee
Midsouth
0.045
Hardin
Houston
40
0.039
0.168
0.247
Humphreys
Midsouth
0.056
Jefferson
Cherokee
0.226
Johnson
Cherokee
0.114
Knox
East Tennessee
0.293
Lake
West Tennessee
0.126
Lauderdale
West Tennessee
0.111
Lawrence
Midsouth
0.075
Lewis
Midsouth
0.264
Lincoln
Middle Tennessee
0.096
Loudon
East Tennessee
0.154
Macon
Southeast
0.049
Madison
West Tennessee
0.381
Marion
Midsouth
0.072
Marshall
Midsouth
0.037
Maury
Middle Tennessee
0.259
McMinn
Cherokee
0.082
McNairy
West Tennessee
0.203
Monroe
East Tennessee, SE
Tennessee,
Southeast
East Tennessee
0.128
Montgomery
Southeast
0.052
Morgan
Plateau
0.152
Obion
NW Tennessee
0.185
Overton
Plateau
0.05
Polk
Appalachia
0.249
Meigs
41
0.09
Putnam
Middle Tennessee
0.112
Rhea
Southeast
0.07
Roane
Tri-cities
0.058
Robertson
Middle Tennessee
0.073
Rutherford
Middle Tennessee
0.132
Scott
0.142
Sequatchie
Plateau, Appalachia,
East Tennessee
East Tennessee
Sevier
Smoky Mountain
1.307
Shelby
Midsouth
0.35
Smith
Midsouth
0.056
Stewart
Southeast
0.162
Sullivan
Tri-cities
0.699
Sumner
Midsouth
0.069
Tipton
Midsouth
0.137
Unicoi
Cherokee
0.113
Union
Southeast
0.225
Warren
Midsouth
0.078
Washington
Tri-cities
0.541
Wayne
West Tennessee
0.059
Weakley
NW Tennessee
0.172
Williamson
Midsouth, Middle
Tennessee, Plateau,
Appalachia
Southeast
Wilson
Middle Tennessee
White
42
0.264
0.043
0.118
0.124
Appendix 2
43
Curriculum Vitae
James C. Barker
Ghent, WV
Education
August 1997--December 2001
Emory and Henry College, Emory VA
BS, BA--Environmental Studies, Geography
January 2004--present
Marshall University, Huntington WV
M.A.—Geography (December 2005)
Employment
February 2002--May 2002
REIC Labs, Beaver WV-- Laboratory Technician
May 2002--September 2002
National Park Service, Triangle VA--Biological Science Technician
December 2002--November 2003
National Park Service, Beaumont TX--Biologist
August 2004--May 2005
Marshall University, Huntington, WV--Teaching Assistant
44